COM 0212.028 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Honorable Aaron Chung, Chair 6 May 1997 Page 2 This title, while general, neither misleads the public, nor the Council members as to its purpose, Faulbaker v. Township Committee 643 A.2d.52 (ND super. L. 1994), and is not the kind, of "hodgepodge" or "logrolling" legislation which the court have found violative of these type of provisions. Schwab v. Arivoshi, supra. 3. The Order of Business was improper. The letter objects to the separation by the Committee of public testimony into two parts. Allegedly, isomedia, the hopeful developer of this facility was allowed to make a presentation, separate from that of other members of the public. The order of presentation of testimony is not addressed in the Rules of the Council, and we believe such order is clearly within the discretion of the presiding officer. 4. The "Three Minute" Rule was not enforced. Rule 17(a) of the County Council clearly makes the enforcement of this rule discretionary with the presiding officer. The Chair was clearly within his discretion in this instance. 5. Improperly registered people were not declared out of order. I do not fully understand the factual scenario complained of here. It seems that witnesses were allowed to testify, who had not complied with the disclosure requirements of Rule 17, relating to addresses and organizational affiliation. Under a strict reading of the rules, this failure should have called for a ruling that these individuals were out of order. The end result, however, was the allowance of more testimony, and more comprehensive discussion, favored by the law HRS §92-1., and any error, if error these were, is harmless. 6. Proponents were allegedly given to proponents by allowing them to speak first. Mr. Sinkin argues that preference was showed by allowing proponents to speak before opponents of the measure.